The amendments changes to the Nationality law, approved by Parliament (positive votes by PS, BE, PAN and Livre, abstentions by PSD and vote against by Chega & PCP) has new conditions for applications from Sephardic Jews – relationship to Portugal and 3 years’ residence in Portugal.
Hence the President’s query to the Constitutional Court – on whether these new conditions are constitutional given that there are already applications in progress and the law appears to be retroactively, and unjustly, altering the conditions for naturalization - with a predictable impact on existing applications being processed.
Déjà vu on retroactive application of laws ??
If approved (ideally immediately) Article 15, item 4 of the nationality law - would have redressed the harm caused by extensive delays in the processing and issuing of residency cards, especially if the application submission date is agreed to be the key start date. (Some here have had very long delays between application submission and pre-approval, whereas others have had a long wait between pre-approval and biometrics).
The Court could agree, or not, with the PR and is required to publish its opinion. I cannot remember the period of time by which it has to pronounce its judgement. Should it agree with the PR, the proposed amendment to the law would return to Parliament for changes and (I believe) another vote (I think the requirement is for a two-thirds’ majority) – with uncertain dates/outcome – as the composition of Parliament will be determined by the elections in March.
I suppose it was too good to be true… !! And we wait yet again.
On the positive side, the PR did not have any issues with article 15, item 4.
Not to post one more disappointing sigh but… sigh.
Was really hoping that this would turn things around for the narrowly scoped group of folks that all general laws seemed to carefully avoid but happy to obtain funds from.
Courts can’t write or approve laws. That’s the role of the legislature, so this would have to go back to parliament to be amended. Courts can only rule on their validity or make determinations on their application.
Was just googling the subject. Everyone will be surprised to know that most law firms seem to be taking their time posting news updates about the nationality law changes not getting the nod from the president. Almost like it benefits them to have the old news up…
If they declare only a part of unconstitutional, then Parliament can strike those elements and return it to the President, who cannot then request additional review. If they re-formulate it rather than striking it, then the whole thing can be returned for a second round of review. Note also that even if they declare the whole to be constitutional, the President can still issue a political veto, which return it to Parliament. So there are several branches of uncertainty here.
Yes, I am totally shocked that the legion of Pollyanna GV law firms are not mentioning current realities. At least not until there is no escape from reality
I have never dealt with a group so certain that the “best case scenario” will always prevail. I guess sunny uplands are all clients want to hear about.
The Constitutional Court now has 25 days to decide on the (in)constitutionality of the mentioned article of the Decree. Should the Constitutional Court rule that the article is in breach of the Portuguese Constitution, the President must veto it, and the decree shall be returned to the Parliament for amending. Should the article be deemed to obey the Constitution, the President can either issue a political veto – which we deem unlikely or publish the decree.
The Parliament could theoretically strike those elements, and return to the president, however … there is no Parliament at the moment. And it is not clear if this law would be a priority for new Parliament.
I wonder if PS put Sephardic jews in that law on purpose, or they do not care at all about retroactivity.
Exactly. A team of lawyers sits behind me at work (the joys of open-plan offices). They spend their days thinking of and planning/protecting for worst-case scenarios. And this is in the UK, not even the “I’ll sue you” culture of some other countries.
Whereas Portugal GV lawyers generally seem to be sales people first, with some knowledge of the law. And generally (but not always!) plugging the best-case scenario, at least until political/populist/bureaucratic/ineptitude reality bites. In most cases I’ve found far better legal advice on this forum than the rah-rah I read from them.
b-b-b-but you gotta adapt to local culture! lawyers in PT just have their own special way of fleecing people. trust me, once you get boots on the ground you will wonder how you lawyered any other way.
And we wait yet again.
